Terminal illness cover launched
Partners Life is launching a new terminal illness product that does not require customers to have life cover as well.
Tuesday, May 10th 2016, 6:00AM 
10 Comments
Steve Wright
General manager of product Steve Wright said the insurer had spotted a market opportunity to cover people who did not need a death benefit.
He said the insurers' Terminal Illness Cover would be used as an asset protection device, particularly by older people who had money in the bank to support a surviving spouse but wanted to insure against the costs of care if they suffered a terminal illness.
It pays out if a patient is likely to die within 12 months but does not pay out on death, so it is cheaper than life cover.
The cover can also be used for children under 10, because it is not a death benefit.
Wright said, for the cost of a cheap coffee per month, parents could get $250,000 of terminal illness cover. “I can’t imagine any sensible reason why anyone would not do this.”
| « Triplejump drops staff | Market pressures could prompt commission change: Report » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
On 10 May 2016 at 8:24 pm RWAW said:
Gee whiz that didn't take long! gaman AFA (like its a badge)why don't you get off your high horse and realise that this product has several purposes other than the ones outlined by Steve Wright. I went to the Partners product launch today and can say that the product innovations and improvements were fantastic. Of course I am only a lowly RFA which probably means my opinions are irrelevant to you lofty AFA brigade.
Partners are here to innovate and motivate and hats off to them for thinking outside the box and coming up with revolutionary products. Perhaps in the future your providers may be as dynamic, if not your clients will be the losers. Rohan Welsh
On 11 May 2016 at 1:27 am gaman AFA said:
Apologies, I didn't mean to tread on an exciting new commission stream for you.....
Just trying to help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_childhood_diseases_and_disorders
On 11 May 2016 at 11:49 am InvestedObserver said:
Clearly gaman AFA has never witnessed the impact on a family where a child was diagnosed with a terrible life threatening illness. The heartbreak of wanting to make the most of every moment but having to continue to work to pay the mortgage.
This product provides a family in that situation with options...
On 12 May 2016 at 11:02 am Steve Wright said:
To Gaman AFA. I'm sorry but I don't understand your post. If your comments are genuine and not merely mischievous, contact me. I'd be happy to discuss the important issues over a coffee, my shout! On 12 May 2016 at 6:23 pm Chartchecker said:
Clearly the NZ pool of complicit advisers (despite qualifications that suggest they can be trusted) still do not see how the insurer defers, denies, defends, and discounts claims for trauma and income protection insurance on technicalities. As was found recently in Australia. The whistleblower was the medical officer who as a doctor could not stomach the unethical behavior. Clearly advisers have a stronger stomach. On 13 May 2016 at 10:52 pm RWAW said:
Chartchecker your post is offensive. You are suggesting that Insurance Companies in NZ work hard to decline claims! They all work hard to pay claims. Reveal to us all why your claim was declined and what the non disclosure was, and then we can decide whether you are legitimate or just a troll. Many thanks and regards Rohan Welsh On 16 May 2016 at 10:04 am Dirty Harry said:
Chartchecker this is intolerable. Goodreturns has generally been a place for respectful discourse, occasionally impassioned debate but generally constructive. Never this vitriolic septic sort of general hatred. Even adviser's comments relating the FMA have been tempered, but this, these recent comments by one called Chartchecker, marks a disappointing descent into new, much lower territory.
The Comminsure scandal is pretty bad. And it's in Australia. Which is another country. Since we're going to draw such a long bow, comparing unrelated insurers in foreign countries that have nothing to do with NZ advisers, why pick on something so relatively minor, such as Comminsure? Why not loot to the UK's great PPI scandal?
The UK’s four biggest banks face paying out £19.5bn in fines, compensation and legal expenses this year and next, taking the total since 2011 to more than £75bn, according to the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s.
(The Guardian 26/04/2016)
The PPI scandal fits your description of tactics being employed. Neither New Zealand nor even Australia has seen the sort of market behaviour you accuse, and that has been found in the UK.
Yes, the Aussie banks are over here, and the most directly affected company in NZ would be Sovereign. I have had talks with some very senior people at Sovereign about this (have you? didn't think so), and about how and why Sovereign can not, will not and did not do anything of the sort. My experience with claims from all of NZ's major insurers has been the exact opposite of what you have described. They pay, and they pay a lot.
Please, for goodness sake, tell your story. What happened? If you feel so strongly; name the insurer, the policy and the claim. NZ advisers are not going to sit by and allow such baseless, sweeping, rude and disgusting comments to go unanswered.
On 17 May 2016 at 4:00 pm Majella said:
Chartchecker - firstly, I'm impressed that Phil has decided to post your nut-job rants.
Second, I will give you two examples from the last 2 months that totally refute your ridiculous claims.
1) I recently met with a new prospect. She had existing insurance, with a local company - $50,000 stand-alone trauma benefit, issued in 1998. In the course of our conversation, she disclosed that she had been diagnosed with an iris melanoma in 2008, 8 years ago. Her adviser at the time did not regularly provide annual reviews, and in any case, she would not have mentioned it without being prompted by my questions. I got a copy of te histology report,, asked her insurer to assess whether it was worth claiming, and guess what? 8 years after the fact, the insurer is perfectly happy to pay. What's more, the premiums paid since the claim has been backdated 8 years, were refunded as well.
2) A friend (not my client) had a medical claim declined under a general exclusion. However, the decline letter arrived 2 days after he'd had his surgery (gastrecotomy due to being diagnosed with the HDGC gene which would have seen have an 80% chance of him dying of stomach cancer, cost $52,432). This proccedure was deemed to be prophylactic (a general exclusion). After only one request, the claim was re--assessed. The Insurer LEGALLY could not meet the claim under the insurance contract, but it did grant an Ex Gratia payment of the full amount, less his $250 excess.
You cannot tell me - nor any one of my professional colleagues - that Insurers are all rogues, villains & thieves!!!
If you have a beef with a claim being declined, then it was surely NOT a valid claim. Insurers pay CLAIMS, but they will not pay where there is no validity to a case being put forward for consideration, but all cases will receive due consideration.The outcome is matter of contract law, not whimsy or dodgy interpretions.
On 23 May 2016 at 10:18 am Majella said:
@ Gaman AFA: just the latest in a long line of 'beggar's bowl' cases:
https://givealittle.co.nz/cause/supportsaoirse#
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
“I can’t imagine any sensible reason why anyone would not do this.”
Hint: Look up common sense in the dictionary.